It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Impossible’ EM drive engine produces thrust from nothing

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Also thus far the thrust produced is so small it could boil down to a hall effect. It is difficult to tell. Like one of my electronics profs said.

"When you are messing around with sub milivolt... you can convince yourself of anything the fuzz is so bad"

Like said above, it is very very important to test, but it is important to have a sense of reality also and to be able to figure out if something really works or doesn't.

Also, people need to understand some physics, Photons have momentum, it is how a solar sail works, its how radiation pressure works. An LED probably produces thrust when it flashes... useful? no, probably in the peco-neuton range.

Should we invest in making huge light bulb/laser propulsion? No because it would worse than a solar sail




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

NASA scientists have purportedly been trying to make the EmDrive a reality, but China now claims to have beaten NASA and pulled off successful testing of the EmDrive on Earth. Furthermore, China’s space agency is also saying it is currently testing the EmDrive out in space aboard its Tiangong-2 space station.

Inverse.com, Dec. 21, 2016 - China Claims it Has Done the "impossible" with EmDrive.

That is not the only thing China is claiming. The claim they have YUGE breakthrough in nuclear fusion but have not released any details. So, they succeeded in testing this out on earth and already are using it in low earth orbit. Hum? Again, they are just stating things with nothing really to back it up.

On this Chinese news... this one I will believe it when I see it.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Interesting thread OP, thanks. I thought I'd write a general reply as there seemed to be a lot of people confused about the fuel usage of this engine. It is being called a reactionless drive as roguetechie states, but I think calling it a propellantless engine is more illuminating for the context of this discussion. The engine would need a power source, but does not eject any propellant during its operation. No propellant needs to be carried with the craft to produce thrust using this engine.

That is a really big deal for the challenge of space travel if this engine works as predicted. Spacecraft can be designed for longer trips that do not need to consist mostly of propellant storage space.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Also, here's a link to Shawyer's(the inventor) page:
emdrive.com...

He gives his own theories for how his engine works if you look through his material. There are a couple papers in there. I've heard them called crude or possibly inaccurate, but they make sense to me. I like to think of it as pushing off from the fabric of the universe, though I suppose that's not exactly right. That's just how I imagine it.

It's interesting to me that Shawyer's designs have shown so much promise without the low temperatures and superconducting materials that his design calls for. It should be interesting to see what adding these elements will do for the test results.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Reactionless drive really is the correct term both from the technology and terminology standpoint.

I say that because an engine is a very good example of a reaction drive system...

Whether you connect a propeller or a transmission and axles you are TRANSMITTING the rotary motion of the engine into something that gives propulsion by the interaction between what is being driven and some physical medium. Ie air water dirt or asphalt.

Engine has very specific connotations and implied meanings that definitely do not fit the EM drive.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

The EM Drive is an engine, but I don't see the point in arguing terminology with you and I agree that reactionless drive is the more apt term. I suppose the word engine conjures images of moving parts, and the EM Drive doesn't really have any, unless you count vibration. I was merely expanding on your statement that the device doesn't use any propellant, in case any other readers hadn't quite digested it.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yes the entire concept of something which requires power input in the form of electricity yet does not use propellant or something interacting with a physical medium to move really messes with people's heads!!

I guess for odd dudes like me who have spent their whole life reading thinking experimenting and investigating the idea it's super clear and completely awesome to boot...

Even though I'm every bit the garage mad scientist and even being open to "fringe" ideas ... I totally truthfully never fully believed I'd see a device like this come out of the black into the white world in my life!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join